Have we reached peak clown world yet? I think this may have just sealed the deal.
Democrat-appointed federal Judge Shane Vannatta of the Missoula County District Court ruled that Montana Senate Bill 458, what some called the "anti-transgender bill," was "unconstitutional."
What they mean when they say "anti-transgender bill" is a law simply defining the words "male" and "female."
Yes, you read that correctly. Defining sex-based terms (male & female) is apparently unconstitutional.
Judge Vannatta said the state didn't properly and clearly define "sex." He struck down the state's law defining male and female because he was uncertain if "sex" referred to binary biology or intercourse.
Yikes. How did someone confused by this make it as a judge?
I mean, did he even read the bill?
It's all laid out pretty clearly. Take a look:
(a) 'Female' means a member of the human species who, under normal development, has XX chromosomes and produces or would produce relatively large, relatively immobile gametes, or eggs, during her life cycle and has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of those gametes. An individual who would otherwise fall within this definition, but for a biological or genetic condition, is female.
(b) 'Male' means a member of the human species who, under normal development, has XY chromosomes and produces or would produce small, mobile gametes, or sperm, during his life cycle and has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of those gametes. An individual who would otherwise fall within this definition, but for a biological or genetic condition, is male.
...
(f) 'Sex' means the organization of the body parts and gametes for reproduction in human beings and other organisms. In human beings, there are exactly two sexes, male and female, with two corresponding types of gametes. The sexes are determined by the biological and genetic indication of male or female, including sex chromosomes, naturally occurring sex chromosomes, gonads, and nonambiguous internal and external genitalia present at birth, without regard to an individual's psychological, behavioral, social, chosen, or subjective experience of gender.
It's pretty loud and clear to me!
You don't even need to scroll down to find the exact definition of "sex" the bill is referring to. 🙄
Judge Vannatta claims he made his ruling because it did not meet the "single title rule."
The title of SB 458 does not state that it is a general appropriation bill, and it carried a fiscal note of $0.00.
Under the single title rule, there are three exceptions: General appropriation bills, bills for codifying laws, and bills for general law revisions.
This bill wasn't a general appropriations bill, so it wasn't excluded from the single title rule. Judge Vannatta explained that the state didn't provide any other legal arguments related to the single title rule, as they didn't claim the bill was codifying any laws.
SB 458 is not a bill for the ‘codification and general revision of the laws' of Montana, and its title does not indicate such. Therefore, SB 458 is not exempt from the requirements of Mont. Const. art. V, §11(3).
Whatever excuse he's made, it's all very transparent.
His ruling is about refusing to define (at a federal level!) the only two sexes. He's obviously just a lefty in a high position of power who is turning his work into activism.
This is it! This must be peak clown world.
Or at least, I hope this is the peak. Please don't let it get any worse than this. 🙏
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
